Browsed by
Month: November 2014



A3blAngela, a normal middle-aged woman with a basic salary has just landed herself in a load of trouble, which could possibly cause her not to go on holiday to Mauritius with her family in December. Angela went to the shop to buy bread before fetching her teenage son from school. As she opened the car door the typical Cape Town wind slammed the door into the passenger door of the car parked next to her, leaving a big dent. What to do? Can she just ignore the incident and park her car in another spot? Isn’t that what most people would do?

In the case of S v Mpho Vincent Mutobvu 2013 (2) SACR 366 (GNP), Mr Mutobvu reversed his motor vehicle from a parking bay when he scratched another parked vehicle. He thought the other vehicle was not damaged and therefore drove home. Unbeknown to him, a security guard observed the incident and took down his car’s registration number. The complainant tracked Mr Mutobvu through his registration number and contacted him. She informed him that she had already reported the matter to her local police station. He inspected her vehicle, and conceded that he was responsible for the damage and paid R6 000 for her car to be repaired. She then went with him to get the charge withdrawn. They were told that he had to pay R500 before the charge could be withdrawn, which he accepted to be his “fine”. Mr Mutobvu was under the impression that this was the end of the matter.

Shortly after the incident Mr Mutobvu had an interview for a new job at a mining company. It was then that he was informed that he could not get the job on account of his criminal record. What criminal record? He went to the Criminal Records Centre in Pretoria and was informed that what he had thought was a R500 fine, was actually an admission of guilt in terms of Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. Mr Mutobvu had admitted to the contravention of Section 61 (1) (a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 93 of 1966 – failure to stop after an accident. His criminal record would only be expunged after 10 years. Mr Mutobvu then applied for a special review as he knew he did not deserve this 10-year criminal record.

In S v Cedras 1992 (2) SACR 530 C at 531j – 532b the following was held regarding a court’s approach to a review:

“In such cases the question must always be whether there are considerations of equity and fair dealing which compel the court to intervene to prevent a probable failure of justice. There must be evidence before the court showing the likelihood of such inequity, should it not intervene. A court must be satisfied that the admission of guilt was probably mistaken or incorrect and the accused or other person deposing on oath on his behalf must give a satisfactory explanation as to how the admission of guilt came to be mistakenly or erroneously made. Good cause must be established for condoning the error or mistake in making the admission of guilt. It must be established that, were the charge to go to trial, the accused would have a probable or arguable defence to the charge and that his deemed conviction or sentence is, accordingly, probably not in accordance with justice.”

Mr Mutobvu stated that he did not have any legal representation when he unknowingly admitted to the guilt charge which resulted in the criminal record. He also stated that he had paid the damages and that the complainant had accepted that the charge be removed. The court stated that “in all circumstances, I would set aside the payment of the admission of guilt fine and subsequent conviction and sentence and order that the fine paid be refunded to the accused”. Mr Mutobvu’s criminal record was erased and the R500 that he had to pay was refunded.

A criminal record is not something that people should take lightly. The first charge may not land you in jail, but it puts you in many other awkward situations. If Angela decides to drive away from her accident, she could also have a criminal record and that means no Mauritius holiday for her. Anyone with a criminal record will not be able to leave the country as they are seen as a danger, and it is almost impossible to find suitable employment. Something as simple as a car dent could change your entire life. My advice to Angela would be to wait for the owner of the vehicle or leave a note with her insurance details. Her situation is like a television license: pay it, it’s the right thing to do!

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.



A2blWe have all made New Year’s Resolutions. This year I will start exercising, eating healthy and spend less time at the office and more with the family. In order to fulfil this resolution, you join the local gymnasium as soon as you return from your December holiday. It does not bother you whether the agreement is for two, three or four years. This year you are going to keep that resolution!

Then winter arrives and you spend more time at the office and at the fireside and less time in the gymnasium. By August you recognise the debit order of the gymnasium on your bank statement, knowing full well that you have not been there for at least two months.

The Consumer Protection Act (“the act”) has limited the effect of fixed-term agreements containing automatic renewal clauses for a further fixed term. As the legislator has given a wide definition to the words “goods” and “services”, most fixed-term agreements will fall within the scope of the act. Section 16 of the act provides that any consumer may cancel a long-term agreement with twenty business days’ notice, which notice must be in writing, unless both parties to the agreement are juristic persons.

The act then provides that the supplier may be entitled to a “reasonable cancellation penalty” payable by the consumer for cancelling the fixed-term agreement. What constitutes a reasonable cancellation penalty will depend on the type and nature of the contract.

Lester Timothy of Deneys Reitz Attorneys uses the example of a mobile phone contract, an analogy most of us will understand. A consumer enters into a two-year contract with a mobile phone service provider and simultaneously purchases a handset to be paid by monthly instalments in the course of the two-year contract. The service provider will thus have incurred expenses regarding the handset. Therefore, in the event of the consumer cancelling the contract, it will be acceptable for the mobile service provider to charge the consumer for the outstanding balance of the handset to recover the expenses incurred.

Where a supplier incurs no significant additional cost as a result of the cancellation of the contract, the supplier will have more difficulty to establish the reasonableness of any cancellation penalty unless a discount is given.

You may therefore approach that gymnasium and notify them in writing of your intention to cancel the agreement after twenty business days. Depending on the remaining period of your contract and the wording of the agreement, you will have to pay a reasonable cancellation penalty. However, as the gymnasium did not incur significant additional costs as a result of your cancellation, you will be entitled to a discount on the remaining balance of the agreement.

Negotiate the cancellation penalty fee with the gymnasium. You may be surprised what the offer of an immediate payment as cancellation penalty can do.

And next year, rather buy running shoes, even expensive ones. They will wait patiently in your wardrobe till the following New Year’s Day…

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.



A3blAngela, ‘n gewone middeljarige vrou met ‘n basiese salaris, bevind haar in ‘n moeilike situasie wat dalk kan veroorsaak dat sy nie in Desember saam met haar familie in Mauritius vakansie kan hou nie. Angela het gou gaan brood koop voordat haar tienerseun uit die skool kom. Toe sy uit haar motor klim, het die kwaai Kaapse wind veroorsaak dat haar motordeur teen die deur van die motor langs haar waai en ‘n groot duik laat. Wat moet Angela doen? Moet sy dit net ignoreer en op ‘n ander plek parkeer? Is dit nie wat baie mense sou doen nie?

In die saak van S v Mpho Vincent Mutobvu 2013 (2) SACR 366 (GNP), het mnr Mutobvu sy motor agteruit uit ‘n parkeerplek getrek toe hy die motor langs hom skraap. Hy het gedink daar was geen skade nie en het toe weggery. ‘n Veiligheidswag het egter gesien wat gebeur het en sy motor se registrasienommer neergeskryf. Die klaagster het mnr Mutobvu deur middel van die registrasienommer opgespoor en hom ingelig dat sy die saak aan die polisie gerapporteer het. Hy het haar voertuig ondersoek, toegegee dat hy skuldig was en aan haar R6 000 vir die herstelkoste betaal. Hulle het saam polisiestasie toe gegaan om die klag terug te trek. Hulle is ingelig dat mnr Mutobvu eers R500 moes betaal voordat die saak teruggetrek kon word. Mnr Mutobvu het die R500 betaal en aanvaar dat dit ‘n gewone boete is. Hy was onder die indruk dat die saak hiermee afgehandel is.

Kort na die ongeluk het mnr Mutobvu ‘n onderhoud gehad vir ‘n nuwe pos by ‘n mynmaatskappy. Hy is toe ingelig dat hy nie die werk kon kry nie vanweë sy kriminele rekord. Van watter kriminele rekord praat die mense? Hy het na die Kriminele Rekord Sentrum in Pretoria gegaan en is ingelig dat die R500 wat hy gemeen het ‘n boete was, eintlik ‘n skulderkenning was kragtens Artikel 57 van die Strafproseswet 51 van 1977. Hy het erken dat hy Artikel 61 (1) (a) van die Wet op Nasionale Padverkeer 93 van 1966 oortree het – versuim om te stop na ‘n ongeluk. Sy kriminele rekord sou eers na tien jaar uitgewis word. Mnr Mutobvu het toe aansoek gedoen om ‘n spesiale hersiening, want hy het gevoel dat hy nie die kriminele rekord verdien nie.

In S v Cedras 1992 (2) SACR 530C in 531j-532b is die volgende bevind ten opsigte van ‘n hof se benadering tot ‘n hersiening:

“In sulke gevalle moet die vraag altyd wees of daar oorwegings van billikheid en regverdige handelswyse is wat die hof verplig om in te gryp om ‘n moontlike mislukking van geregtigheid te voorkom. Daar moet bewyse voor die hof wees van die waarskynlikheid van sodanige onbillikheid, sou die hof nie tussenbeide tree nie. ’n Hof moet tevrede wees dat die skulderkenning waarskynlik foutief was en die beskuldigde of ‘n persoon wat namens hom ‘n eed aflê, moet ‘n bevredigende verduideliking gee van hoe dit gebeur het dat die skulderkenning verkeerdelik gemaak is. Goeie gronde moet aangevoer word vir kondonering van die fout wat gemaak is met die skulderkenning. Daar moet bevind word dat, as die aanklag tot ‘n verhoor sou lei, die beskuldigde ‘n waarskynlike verweer teen die aanklag sou hê en dat sy geagte skuldigbevinding of vonnis gevolglik waarskynlik nie in ooreenstemming met geregtigheid is nie.”

Mnr Mutobvu het gesê dat hy nie regsverteenwoordiging gehad het toe hy onwetend skuld erken het wat gelei het tot die kriminele rekord nie. Hy het ook gesê dat hy vir die skade betaal het en dat die klaagster aanvaar het dat die klag teruggetrek word. Die hof het verklaar dat “in alle omstandighede sal ek die betaling van die skulderkenningsboete en daaropvolgende skuldigbevinding en vonnis tersyde stel en beveel dat die boete aan die beskuldigde terugbetaal word”. Mnr Mutobvu se kriminele rekord is geskrap en die R500 is aan hom terugbetaal.

‘n Kriminele rekord is nie iets wat mens ligtelik moet opneem nie. Die eerste klag mag jou dalk nie in die tronk laat beland nie maar dit kan jou in baie ander ongemaklike situasies plaas. As Angela besluit om weg te ry van haar ongeluk kan sy ook ‘n kriminele rekord kry, en dit sou beteken geen Mauritius-vakansie vir haar nie. Geen persoon met ‘n kriminele rekord mag die land verlaat nie, want hy/sy word as ‘n gevaar beskou, en dit is dan byna onmoontlik om geskikte werk te vind. Iets so eenvoudig soos ‘n duik in ‘n motordeur kan jou hele lewe verander. My raad aan Angela sou wees om vir die eienaar van die voertuig te wag of ‘n nota te laat met haar versekeringsbesonderhede. Haar situasie is soos ‘n TV-lisensie: betaal dit, dis die regte ding om te doen!

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.



A2blAlmal van ons het al Nuwejaarsvoornemens gemaak. Hierdie jaar gaan ek begin oefen, gesond eet, minder tyd op kantoor bestee en meer tyd met die gesin deurbring. Om jou voorneme uit te voer, sluit jy dadelik na terugkeer van jou Desembervakansie by die plaaslike gimnasium aan.  Dit pla nie eers of die kontrak vir twee, drie of selfs vier jaar is nie. Hierdie jaar gaan jy by daardie voorneme hou!

Met die aanbreek van die winter bestee jy al hoe meer tyd op kantoor en voor die kaggel en minder tyd in die gimnasium. Teen Augustus herken jy die debietorder van die gimnasium op jou bankstaat, terwyl jy goed weet dat jy twee maande laas by die gimnasium was.

Die Wet op Verbruikersbeskerming (“die wet”) beperk die effek van ‘n vastetermynkontrak wat ‘n outomatiese hernuwingsklousule vir ‘n verdere vaste termyn bevat. Aangesien die wetgewer wye betekenis heg aan die terme goedere (“goods”) en dienste (“services”) sal die meerderheid vastetermynkontrakte binne die reikwydte van die wet val. Artikel 16 van die wet maak voorsiening daarvoor dat enige verbruiker ‘n langtermynkontrak kan kanselleer met skriftelike kennisgewing van twintig besigheidsdae, tensy die kontrak tussen twee juridiese persone is.

Die wet maak vervolgens voorsiening vir ‘n redelike kansellasieboete (“reasonable cancellation penalty”) wat deur die verbruiker aan die diensverskaffer betaal moet word weens die kansellasie van die vastetermynkontrak. Wat ‘n redelike kansellasieboete behels, sal afhang van die tipe en aard van die kontrak.

Lester Timothy van Deneys Reitz Prokureurs gebruik ‘n voorbeeld wat by die meeste van ons aanklank sal vind. ‘n Verbruiker sluit ‘n tweejaarkontrak met ‘n selfoondiensverskaffer. ‘n Selfoon word gelyktydig aangekoop, die koopprys waarvan maandeliks oor die tweejaartermyn afbetaal moet word. Die diensverskaffer het dus ‘n uitgawe aangegaan wat betref die selfoon.  Sou die verbruiker die kontrak kanselleer, is dit derhalwe aanvaarbaar dat die diensverskaffer die uitstaande balans van die selfoon as ‘n redelike kansellasieboete hef ten einde sy onkostes te verhaal.

Waar ‘n verskaffer geen noemenswaardige ekstra koste moet dra as gevolg van kansellasie van die kontrak nie sal die verskaffer afslag aan die verbruiker moet gee ten einde ‘n redelike kansellasieboete vas te stel.

Jy kan dus die gimnasium nader en skriftelik twintig werksdae kennis gee van jou voorneme om die kontrak te kanselleer. Afhangend van die bewoording in die kontrak en die oorblywende  kontraktermyn, sal jy ‘n redelike kansellasieboete moet betaal. Aangesien die gimnasium nie beduidende ekstra koste aangegaan het as gevolg van die kansellasie nie, sal jy geregtig wees op ‘n afslag op die oorblywende termyn van die kontrak.

Onderhandel oor die kansellasieboete met die gimnasium. Jy sal verras wees wat ‘n onmiddellike betaalaanbod as ‘n kansellasieboete kan vermag. En koop eerder hardloopskoene volgende jaar, selfs al is hulle duur. Hulle sal geduldig in jou klerekas wag tot die volgende Nuwejaarsdag…

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.



A1blCapacity in the legal sense is a threshold requirement for persons to retain the power to make decisions for themselves.  In South Africa the law of agency is based upon the principle that an agent cannot do that which his principal has no capacity to do himself.  In other words, one cannot authorise someone else to perform acts that you yourself do not have the capacity to perform.  In order for the power of attorney to be valid, the principal must have the necessary contractual capacity.

A legitimate expectation of the law is that it should establish a structure within which appropriate autonomy and self-determination is recognised and protected. Such a structure should provide appropriate substitute decision-making devices and the necessary protection from abuse, neglect and exploitation.

Persons with limited capacity to contract, such as minors, may grant powers of attorney only in so far as the powers conferred fall within the limits of their contractual capacity. A power of attorney granted by a person who is incapable of managing his own affairs through mental disorder is normally invalid, even if granted before he became so incapacitated.

At present the law deals with decision-making incapacity by way of curatorship. The curatorship system has been criticised on the ground that if suffers from a number of serious and frustrating difficulties mainly relating to its high cost, prolonged procedure, paternalistic nature and potential for abuse.

The present mechanisms to identify incapacity for legal purposes are based on the premise that a person is presumed to have the requisite capacity.  A lack of capacity must be alleged and proved before a Court in order that it may decide the issue. The onus is upon the person alleging lack of capacity to prove this allegation.

Against the above background the South African Law Reform Commission, provisionally proposed that a change to the law is necessary to provide for the following:

  • An alternative to the curatorship system, without abolishing it.
  • Introduction into our law of the concepts of the enduring power of attorney and the conditional power of attorney. (An enduring power of attorney endures the subsequent incapacity of the person who granted it, while a conditional power of attorney comes into effect only on incapacity.)

It needs to be notes that it has been 10 years since the above was introduced and the matter is yet to be taken further.

Alternative possibilities:

  1. In this instance an option would be to apply to court for the appointment of an administrator or a curator, depending on the circumstances.  The application is usually brought by next-of-kin, but can be brought by any person with a sufficient interest in the person concerned.  The person against whom the declaration is claimed must be properly represented by a curator ad litem.  The Court, after hearing all the medical and other evidence, if satisfied that the person is mentally ill, and as such incapable of managing his or her own affairs, makes the declaration.
  1. Another alternative would be to set up a family trust, which itself takes time and could be overly complex.
  1. Although not considered a legal document, an advance directive (also known as a living will) allows people with dementia to outline the treatment and care they would like in the future, when they may not be able to communicate their wishes – this however does not make provision for another to manage their property and affairs.

In light of the above it is clear that a power of attorney is of little or no value to someone who fears that their mental capacity is weakening or may be weakened in the future and who wants someone to act on their behalf if and when that situation arises.

Should a similar situation arise and you are unsure of the legal consequences, rather approach an attorney to assist you and to make sure that everything is in compliance with the law.

Compiled by Melanie Visagie

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Reference List:

  • Lexis Nexis
  • Wille’s Principles of South African Law 55.
  • Molyneux v Natal Land & Colonization Co Ltd [1905] AC 555(PC) at 561.
  • Phil Morkel Bpk v Niemand 1970(3) SA 455 (C) at 456.


A1blHandelingsbevoegdheid is die drempel vereistes in ons reg om te bepaal of ‘n regsubjek die mag het om die draer van regte en pligte te wees.  In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg is die beginsel dat ‘n prinsipaal nie ‘n agent kan magtig om namens hom op te tree, indien hyself nie die bevoegdheid het om op te tree nie.  Vir ‘n algemene volmag om geldig te wees, moet die prinsipaal self oor die nodige handelingsbevoegdheid beskik.

Die verwagting in ons reg is dat dit ‘n struktuur moet vestig waarbinne selfstandigheid en selfbeskikking erken en beskerm word.  So ‘n struktuur moet voorsiening maak vir ‘n plaasvervangende meganisme, wat diegene wat nie meer oor die nodige handelingsbevoegdheid beskik nie beskerm teen uitbuiting, verwaarlosing en misbruik.

Persone met beperkte handelingsbevoegdheid, soos minderjariges of geestesongesteldes, mag slegs iemand nomineer om hom as agent te verteenwoording, in sover as wat hul bevoegdheid binne die grense van hul eie kontraktuele bevoegdheid val.  ʼn Persoon met beperkte handelingsbevoegdheid, wat nie sy eie sake kan behartig nie, sal nie ʼn wettige volmag aan ʼn ander kan verleen nie.  Indien sodanige volmag verleen is voor ʼn persoon onbevoeg verklaar is, sal die volmag ongeldig geag word vanaf die oomblik van onbekwaamheid.

Tans handel ons reg met hierdie kwessie deur voorsiening te maak dat diegene wat nie meer selfstandig besluite kan neem nie, se naasbestaandes aansoek kan doen om kuratorskap.  Die roete van kuratorskap word egter in die binnekringe gekritiseer, weens die hoë kostes daaraan verbonde, uitgerekte prosedure, paternalistiese natuur en moontlikheid van uitbuiting.

Die uitgangspunt is dat enige persoon geag word om oor die nodige handelingsbevoegdheid te beskik.  Onbekwaamheid moet beweer en in die hof bewys word alvorens daar enige besluite oor die persoon se vermoë geneem kan word.  Die onus is op die persoon wat beweer om die nodige gebrek aan bevoegdheid te bewys.

Teen hierdie agtergrond het die Suid-Afrikaanse Regshervormingskommissie voorlopig voorgestel dat ‘n verandering aan die wet nodig is om voorsiening vir die volgende te maak:

  • ʼn Alternatief tot kuratorskap sonder die afskaffing daarvan; en
  • Die moontlike inwerkingtrede van ʼn blywende- en voorwaardelike volmag in ons reg (die blywende volmag duur voort indien ‘n persoon onbekwaam word, terwyl ʼn voorwaardelike volmag in werking tree by die gebrek van handelingsbevoegdheid).

Tog moet daarop gelet word dat dit reeds tien jaar is sedert die regshervormingskommissie voormelde opsies vir kommentaar voorgelê het, en daar tot op datum geen vordering hieromtrent gemaak is nie.

Alternatiewe moontlikhede:

  1. Om by die Hooggeregshof aansoek te doen om aanstelling van ʼn kurator of administrateur, afhangende van die omstandighede.  Die aansoek word gewoonlik geïnisieer deur ʼn naasbestaande, maar kan ook geloods word deur enige persoon met voldoende belang tot die betrokke persoon.  In die eerste instansie moet daar ‘n aansoek na die hof gebring word vir die aanstelling van ‘n kurator ad litem vir sodanige pasiënt om hom in die verrigtinge te verteenwoordig.  Die hof sal dan ‘n bevel maak of die persoon wel onbekwaam is om sy eie belange te behartig, waarop ‘n kurator vir die pasiënt of sy goed aangestel word.
  1. Nog ‘n alternatief sou wees om ‘n trust te stig, maar hierdie proses neem tyd, is kompleks en die proses om eiendom te skenk of aan die trust oor te dra, is duur.
  1. ‘n Lewende testament, hoewel dit nie as regsdokument geag word nie, maak voorsiening vir die mediese behandeling van ‘n persoon wat nie meer in staat is om self sekere besluite te kan neem nie en sorg dat daar uting aan die wense van ‘n persoon gegee word.  Die dokument is egter beperk tot mediese behandeling en maak nie vir eiendom of die bestuur van sake voorsiening nie.

In samevatting, is dit duidelik dat ‘n volmag van min of geen waarde is vir iemand wat vrees dat hul eie vermoë verswak of moontlik in die nabye toekoms kan verswak en bloot wil voorsiening maak dat iemand namens hul in sodanige tyd kan optree wanneer die situasie hom voordoen nie.

Indien u onseker is of u aan die regvereistes voldoen en wat die pad vorentoe is, skakel gerus ‘n prokureur wat u sal bystaan en adviseer.

Saamgestel deur Melanie Visagie

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.


  • Lexis Nexis
  • Wille’s Principles of South African Law 55.
  • Molyneux v Natal Land & Colonization Co Ltd [1905] AC 555(PC) at 561.
  • Phil Morkel Bpk v Niemand 1970(3) SA 455 (C) at 456.


1Dit is al tradisie om elke jaar ‘n Aktesjol te hou vir die aktesekretaresses van die Noordelike Voorstede. Prokureursfirmas in die area maak beurte om die geleentheid aan te bied en borge te betrek.

This year’s jol was organized by FPS Attorneys. The theme was a Boerefest at Loch Lynne farm. Each guest received a goody bag with fun items and a cowboy hat. The brothers Christo & Kobus provided the entertainment for the afternoon.


Catherine of the Bonds department was one of the first ladies to take the mechanical bull for a ride!

Ons meisies het hierdie jaar met verskeie gelukkige trekkings  weggeloop, onder andere ‘n Ipad, kontant, ‘n spa behandeling, wyn, ‘n piekniek en ‘n Tygervallei geskenkbewys.3

November was also the birthday month of our director Jurgens Tubb. He was surprised by his girls with a hamper full of his favourite spoils.

Verder is die Personeelforum besig met die beplanning van ons Kersete op 12 Desember. Dit blyk ‘n groot verrassing te wees en sal by ‘n geheime venue plaasvind… ons vertel volgende maand verder.